人類幾乎毫無防御能力。為什么野生動(dòng)物不再攻擊我們?（三）
Humans are practically defenseless. Why don''t wild animals attack us more?
譯文簡介
我總是對“人類是脆弱的”這類問題感到困惑。
正文翻譯
Humans are practically defenseless. Why don't wild animals attack us more?
人類幾乎毫無防御能力。為什么野生動(dòng)物不再攻擊我們?
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
人類幾乎毫無防御能力。為什么野生動(dòng)物不再攻擊我們?
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
“It's usually not healthy for wild animals to try to engage with the tyrant.”
There are some exceptions. In Sri Lanka I was told that a wild mongoose will often simply show up at a house near the jungle and essentially announce that it is now part of the household.
People and mongooses get along well; not only do they keep snakes and other vermin away (not an insignificant task, it you live near the outskirts of town), but they are also very friendly and loving and make good pets.
“野生動(dòng)物試圖與暴君接觸通常是不健康的?！?br /> 也有一些例外。在斯里蘭卡，有人告訴我，野生貓鼬通常只會出現(xiàn)在叢林附近的房子里，基本上宣布它現(xiàn)在是家庭的一部分。
人和貓鼬相處融洽。它們不僅可以防止蛇和其他害蟲(這不是一項(xiàng)微不足道的任務(wù)，因?yàn)槟阕≡诔墙几浇?，它們也很友好、有愛心，是很好的寵物。
It makes sense. It’s the same sort of thing as how dogs and cats came to be domesticated by humans. We don’t have mongooses in this part of the world, but pets that keep vermin away are certainly useful anywhere.
它是有意義的。這和狗和貓如何被人類馴化是一樣的道理。
我們這里我們沒有貓鼬，但把害蟲趕走的寵物都是有用的。
“Because we are NOT “practically defenseless.” We are the worst and most ruthless tyrant that Kingdom Animalia has ever seen.”
I’ll disagree with that. We are the most efficient and effective tyrant. There are and have been more cruel and ruthless creatures then man, they just lacked the ability to be efficient at ruling the others.
Cats and dolphins/orcas make us look good, and nothing is more ruthless in general behavior then a hyena that I know of, execpt maybe some insects, like the Mantis, but they can’t control themselves at all so ruthless doesn’t really apply.
“因?yàn)槲覀儾⒎恰翢o防御能力‘。我們是動(dòng)物王國有史以來最壞、最殘忍的暴君。”
我不同意。我們是最有效率的暴君。有并且一直有比人類更殘忍和無情的生物，他們只是缺乏有效地統(tǒng)治其他物種的能力。
貓、海豚和虎鯨讓我們看起來很好，沒有什么比鬣狗的行為更殘忍的了，除了一些昆蟲，比如螳螂，但它們根本無法控制自己，所以無情并不適用。
Many animals are dangerous but none have the mental capacity for evil. Except the human animal. Our intellect makes us the enemy of the very environment we need to survive
許多動(dòng)物是危險(xiǎn)的，但沒有一種動(dòng)物具有作惡的精神能力。
除了人類這個(gè)動(dòng)物。我們的智慧使我們成為賴以生存的環(huán)境的敵人。
It’s a 19th Century myth that humans’ sense of sight and smell is weak compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.
The thing that probably stops most predators from killing us, over the course of our evolutionary history, is that we see them before they see us and move or make lots of noise. Predators then have to exert more energy hunting us down and probably fight a whole group of humans.
In terms of colour perception, humans are near the top in mammals. One mammal with better colour perception than us is the tetrachromatic reindeer (who are also some of the only mammals with ultraviolet colour perception and red-green perception; some dichromatic rodents do have UV perception from their blue cone). Most mammals do not have more than two types of colour cones in their eyes.
Having better colour perception allows us to see colour patterns that are invisible or much more subtle to other animals. Almost every mammal is a dichromat with two colour rods, but humans and a handful of our closest Ape relatives are trichromats. To dogs, deer, lions, and a portion of humans, the distinction between green shades and red shades is much more subtle:
On top of that, humans also have the best daytime angular resolution of any other documented mammal (at 1 minute angular resolution, compared to 10 minutes for a cat).
Directly related pattern recognition, the human eye has the fastest cycles per degree of visual acuity of any mammal which vastly increases the spatial processing capacity of our visual system and increases the amount of information going to our brain (Data from Hayes et al., 2007):
人類的視覺和嗅覺與動(dòng)物王國的其他動(dòng)物相比是羸弱的，這是19世紀(jì)的謬傳。
在我們的進(jìn)化史上，阻止大多數(shù)捕食者殺死我們的原因可能是，我們在它們看到我們之前看到了它們，它們的移動(dòng)等活動(dòng)會發(fā)出很多噪音。這樣一來，捕食者就不得不使出更多的力氣來追捕我們，可能還要和一大群人類作戰(zhàn)。
在對顏色的感知方面，人類在哺乳動(dòng)物中位居前列。有一種哺乳動(dòng)物比我們對顏色的感知能力更強(qiáng)，那就是四色馴鹿(馴鹿也是唯一一種能感知紫外線和紅綠顏色的哺乳動(dòng)物。一些兩色嚙齒動(dòng)物的藍(lán)色視錐細(xì)胞也可以感知到紫外線)。大多數(shù)哺乳動(dòng)物的眼睛里是沒有兩種以上的視錐細(xì)胞的。
有了更好的顏色感知能力，我們就能看到其他動(dòng)物看不見或更微妙的顏色模式。幾乎所有哺乳動(dòng)物都是兩色視覺，但人類和少數(shù)與我們最接近的類人猿是三色視者。對狗、鹿、獅子和部分人類來說，綠色陰影和紅色陰影之間的區(qū)別要微妙得多:
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
最重要的是，人類在白天的分辨率也是其他有記錄的哺乳動(dòng)物中最好的。
與模式識別直接相關(guān)的是，在任何哺乳動(dòng)物中，人類眼睛的每一級視覺敏度的周期是最快的，這極大地提高了我們視覺系統(tǒng)的空間處理能力，增加了進(jìn)入大腦的信息量。
If you take a dog on a walk, and you are paying attention to the world around you, odds are you will see an animal way before your dog does. Your dog will smell an animal before you do though. The only time my dogs have ever sighted an animal before me I was on my phone, or the animal was low to the ground (e.g., under a car) and I couldn’t see the animal at human-height.
We aren’t blind-deaf disembodied brains compared to other animals. Human eyes are very powerful and decrease the likelihood of being ambushed. They further decrease the likelihood of a predator picking off a human alone by giving a human ample time to raise the alarm.
If Zebras and Antelope had as good of eyesight as humans, Lions would probably starve to death. The amount of time between each feeding would increase to the point that they would be exerting more energy to kill a zebra than they gain from eating one.
The eyesight of other mammals is, on average, poor. Hunters go off in the woods wearing orange vests so that other hunters don’t accidentally shoot them, and they still sneak up on deer.
人類的視覺感知之所以好是因?yàn)槲覀兊拇竽X很好，這是笛卡爾、弗洛伊德和維多利亞時(shí)代的觀點(diǎn)。不管我們的大腦有多大，如果我們的視覺靈敏度更差，我們一開始就只會看到更少的圖景。
如果你帶著狗出去散步，你會關(guān)注你周圍的世界，很有可能你會比你的狗更早看到動(dòng)物，而你的狗會比你先聞到動(dòng)物的氣味。我的狗狗在我之前看到動(dòng)物的唯一一次，是在我打電話的時(shí)候，或者動(dòng)物離地面很低(比如，在汽車下面)，在人類高度我看不到的動(dòng)物。
與其他動(dòng)物相比，我們的大腦并非又盲又聾。人類的眼睛非常強(qiáng)大，可以降低被伏擊的可能性。通過給人類足夠的時(shí)間來發(fā)出警報(bào)，它們進(jìn)一步降低了捕食者單獨(dú)殺死人類的可能性。
如果斑馬和羚羊有和人類一樣好的視力，獅子可能會餓死。每次喂食間隔的時(shí)間會增加到這樣的程度:它們殺死一只斑馬所消耗的能量比吃掉一只斑馬所獲得的能量還要多。
其他哺乳動(dòng)物的視力一般都很差。獵人穿著橙色背心進(jìn)入森林，這樣其他獵人就不會不小心射中他們，但他們?nèi)匀豢梢酝低到咏埂?/b>
是的，她有一把步槍，但人類會在普通步槍射程之外看到她(這就是她服裝的意義)。
I’ve been getting hundreds of comments I agree with saying:
BUT TOOLS!!!
Yes. Tools help humans too, to beat a dead horse that is mentioned in every other answer to this question one more time.
When I wrote this answer though, I was also thinking of humans without tools and even prehistoric times before proto-humans developed tools. Humans have been around a lot longer than tools.
I have also been getting hundreds of comments I disagree with saying:
Humans take revenge on animals. This is why animals don’t hunt humans.
This would require animals to have inter-generational transmitted knowledge of human vengeance, and a psychological model not only of themselves, but a model of the anticipated behaviour of humans if a human dies.
I am open-minded enough to agree some animals are smart enough for that, but certainly not bears, for instance. Bears cannot even figure out to use wildlife overpasses to avoid getting killed by cars:
編輯：
我收到數(shù)百條我同意的留言：還有工具！
我同意。確實(shí)，工具也可以幫助人類，這個(gè)問題下每一個(gè)其他答案中都有被提到。
當(dāng)我寫下這個(gè)答案時(shí)，我也想到了沒有工具的人類，甚至在原始人類發(fā)明工具之前的史前時(shí)代。人類比工具存在的時(shí)間要長得多。
我也收到了上百條我不同意的評論: 人類報(bào)復(fù)動(dòng)物。這就是為什么動(dòng)物不捕食人類。
這就要求動(dòng)物具備人類復(fù)仇的代代相傳的知識，以及一個(gè)心理模型，不僅是關(guān)于它們自己的，而且是關(guān)于如果一個(gè)人死了，人類的預(yù)期行為的模型。
我很開明，同意有些動(dòng)物足夠聰明，但有些肯定不是，比如熊。熊甚至不知道使用野生動(dòng)物立交橋來避免被汽車撞死:
Hallstrom et al. (2008) found bears were killed in traffic collisions at a rate that increased or decreased proportional to traffic, despite the construction of dozens of wildlife crossings throughout Alberta, Canada. You are telling me bears are smart enough to know that if they kill a human, it’s a death sentence, but aren’t smart enough to walk on that to cross the road.
Predatory animals going extinct due to human activity is a relatively new thing on the time scale. The first species, to my knowledge, that this is speculated to have happened to is sabre tooth tigers (or Smilodons).
However, most scientists believe Smilodons went extinct due to their food sources dying off (perhaps due to humans eating their prey), not because humans hunted Smilodons to extinction (see Chimento et al., 2019).
There isn’t any evidence wolves were hunted before 8,000 years ago (Mech et al., 2003) and they obviously occasionally ate humans before then. The reason humans started hunting wolves was mainly to protect livestock.
In parts of the world where humans did not become nomadic herders, like North America, wolf populations continued thriving until European herders showed up.
Another species of animal which frequently eats humans is the crocodile. They eat 1,000 humans per year and have not been hunted to extinction.
Most humans avoid being eaten by crocodiles not through tools but by seeing them and avoiding water with crocodiles in it. Conversely, most humans who get eaten by crocodiles fail to see a crocodile, go in the water, and then munched on.
Hallstrom等人(2008)發(fā)現(xiàn)，盡管在加拿大阿爾伯塔省建設(shè)了幾十個(gè)野生動(dòng)物通道，但熊死于交通碰撞與交通流量成正比。你是說熊足夠聰明，知道如果它們殺了人，就等于判了死刑，但它們還沒聰明到走在那上面過馬路？
由于人類活動(dòng)而滅絕的食肉動(dòng)物在時(shí)間尺度上是一個(gè)相對較新的事情。據(jù)我所知，推測發(fā)生這種情況的第一個(gè)物種是劍齒虎。然而，大多數(shù)科學(xué)家認(rèn)為，劍齒虎的滅絕是由于它們的食物來源消失(可能是由于人類吃了它們的獵物)，而不是因?yàn)槿祟愥鳙C使劍齒虎滅絕(見Chimento et al.， 2019)。沒有任何證據(jù)表明狼在8000年前被獵殺(Mech et al.， 2003)，在那之前它們顯然偶爾會吃人。人類獵殺狼的原因主要是為了保護(hù)牲畜。
在世界上一些人類還沒有成為游牧民族的地方，比如北美，狼的數(shù)量持續(xù)繁榮，直到歐洲牧民出現(xiàn)。另一種經(jīng)常吃人的動(dòng)物是鱷魚。它們每年吃掉1000人，還沒有被捕殺到滅絕。大多數(shù)人避免被鱷魚吃掉不是通過工具，而是通過看到它們和避開有鱷魚的水域。相反，大多數(shù)被鱷魚吃掉的人都沒有看到鱷魚，直接下水毫無防備。
I have gotten a few comments saying:
Human eyes face forward, therefore they exist for hunting because we are natural predators.
Every primate has forward-facing eyes and so do Koalas. Our eyesight is good for depth perception not for offensive or defensive reasons, but because we spent most of our evolutionary history in trees where depth perception was very important.
Coincidentally, having good depth perception also helps everywhere except in underground dens or caves, and is excellent for constructing partially-obscured images (e.g., part of a leopards face as it stares at you through tall grass).
Additionally, animals that are upright on two legs can spin so having eyes on the side of the head isn’t as important. A human can turn much faster than a deer or a gazelle.
One herbivorous group of animals, Kangaroos, also tend to have forward-facing eyes. Like humans, they can spin to face the sound of an approaching predator without taking 10 steps using four different legs.
在人類進(jìn)化史上的任何一個(gè)時(shí)刻，不管有沒有工具，如果人類被食肉動(dòng)物吃掉的次數(shù)超過我們繁殖后代的次數(shù)，我們就會滅絕。工具顯然在使人類超越食肉動(dòng)物方面發(fā)揮了作用。
我收到了一些評論：人類的眼睛朝前，所以它們是為了狩獵而存在的，因?yàn)槲覀兪翘焐牟妒痴摺?br /> 每一種靈長類動(dòng)物都有朝前的眼睛，考拉也是。我們的視力能很好地感知深度，不是因?yàn)檫M(jìn)攻或防御的原因，而是因?yàn)槲覀冊谶M(jìn)化歷史的大部分時(shí)間里都在樹上度過，而深度感知在這里非常重要。
巧合的是，良好的深度感知在任何地方都有幫助，除了在地下洞穴里，而且對于構(gòu)建部分模糊的圖像(例如，豹子的臉的一部分，因?yàn)樗⒅愦┻^高高的草叢)是很有用的。此外，用兩條腿直立的動(dòng)物可以轉(zhuǎn)身，所以眼睛長在頭的單側(cè)并不那么重要。人比鹿或瞪羚轉(zhuǎn)身更快。
袋鼠是一種食草動(dòng)物，它們的眼睛也傾向于朝前。和人類一樣，它們可以轉(zhuǎn)身面對捕食者靠近的聲音，而不用用四條不同的腿走10步。
Recently i was walking in the forest with my gsd, and he didnt even notice a deer.
最近，我和我的gsd（德國牧羊犬）在森林里散步，他甚至沒有注意到有一只鹿。/笑哭
Did you mean “dog”? Dunno what a “gsd” is.
But yeah, I’ve been there, done that. At 2 am I was walking my fiancée’s Schnoodle and came across a skulk of foxes. Four or five foxes in the park, staring at me. I could see them in the dark under the moonlight.
I stood there for two minutes, trying to get them on video, shining my iPhone’s camera with the video on. The most I got was their eyes reflecting back at me in the camera.
Minutes of standing around, the Schnoodle finally smelled the foxes and started whining, then yelping, then barking, then snarling, then yelping some more.
Compared to most animals, humans are walking around with a pair of night vision telescopes on our heads.
你是說“狗”嗎？不知道gsd什么意思。
但是，是的，我也經(jīng)歷過。凌晨2點(diǎn)，我?guī)е椅椿槠薜墓饭稴chnoodle出門散步，遇到了一群狐貍。公園里有四五只狐貍，盯著我看。我能在月光下的黑暗中看到他們。我在那里站了兩分鐘，試圖把他們拍下來，打開我的iPhone相機(jī)的視頻。我得到的最多的是他們的眼睛在鏡頭里對著我。
站了幾分鐘后，Schnoodle終于聞到了狐貍的味道，開始嗚嗚，然后吠叫，越來越大聲。與大多數(shù)動(dòng)物相比，人類走路時(shí)頭上戴著一對夜視望遠(yuǎn)鏡。
German shepherd dog
Gsd是德國牧羊犬的意思。
Interesting. Never heard that acronym before.
有趣，之前從來沒聽說過。
I read many years ago a theory that the “exchange of superior senses” between humans and dogs was a reason for domestication; IOW, it’s as much a motive for dogs to share their lives with humans as for humans to share theirs with dogs. Dogs are certainly the most successful canids.
許多年前，我讀過一個(gè)理論，認(rèn)為人與狗之間的“高級感官交流”是馴化的一個(gè)原因。換句話說，這是狗和人類相互分享生活的動(dòng)機(jī)。狗顯然是最成功的犬科動(dòng)物。
Just as an interesting contrast: while humans have great vision compared to other mammals, we have poor vision relative to birds. The comparison is humiliating.
While it's not universal to all birds, many of them see a larger range of colors (UV), deeper information about colors (four layers instead of three), sharper acuity, better fast-motion tracking, better slow-motion tracking, and some even manage to see magnetic field direction. Even our night vision is outclassed by a lot of birds, including diurnal ones.
It's a good thing that we're simply too big to be prey for any of them.
這是一個(gè)有趣的對比:與其他哺乳動(dòng)物相比，人類的視力很好，但與鳥類相比，我們的視力很差。這種比較是很丟臉的。
雖然并不是所有鳥類都能看到的，但它們中的許多能看到更大范圍的顏色(紫外線)，更深層的顏色信息(四層而不是三層)，更敏銳的靈敏度，更好的快速運(yùn)動(dòng)跟蹤，更好的慢動(dòng)作跟蹤，有些甚至能看到磁場方向。甚至我們的夜視能力也被很多鳥類超越，包括白天的鳥類。
好事是，我們太大了，不可能成為它們的獵物。
Also, don’t underestimate our ability to throw and pick up obxts. Even without our intelligence, simply throwing rocks is a lethal skill and simple weighted sticks can allow us to inflict serious damage while keeping our entire body away from the potential predator.
此外，不要低估我們?nèi)訓(xùn)|西和撿東西的能力。即使沒有我們的智慧，簡單地扔石頭也是一種致命的技能，簡單的揮舞棒子可以讓我們制造嚴(yán)重的傷害，同時(shí)讓我們的整個(gè)身體遠(yuǎn)離潛在的捕食者。
Very interesting, thanks. The other thing that’s so effective about our eyes is how high up they are. There are only a few land animals with eyes placed so far off the ground - elephant, giraffe, Some ostrich, moose, etc. And all of those except the ostrich are much bigger than us and need a lot more calories. Walking upright puts our good eyes way up, and positions us to see predators and prey before they see us, and to get to them or away from them using a lot less energy.
非常有趣，謝謝。另一件對我們的眼睛很有效的事情是它們的高度。只有少數(shù)陸地動(dòng)物的眼睛離地面的距離有這么遠(yuǎn)——大象、長頸鹿、一些鴕鳥、駝鹿等等。除了鴕鳥之外，所有這些動(dòng)物都比我們大得多，需要更多的卡路里。直立行走使我們的視覺良好的眼睛立得更高，使我們能在捕食者和獵物看到我們之前看到它們，從而更省力地接近它們或逃離它們。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
We don’t fully utilize our senses of smell either, society isn’t structured that way.
I can smell if my brother is home. He doesn’t cook or shower in the morning, and usually goes straight from bed to door, but when I wake up, I know.
Likewise if I hear the door open, a few seconds later I know if it is just him, someone else, or someone with him.
When I am hiking, I look, listen, and smell.
我們也沒有充分利用我們的嗅覺，社會結(jié)構(gòu)不是這樣的。
我能聞到我弟弟是否在家。他早上不做飯也不洗澡，通常是直接從床上走到門口，但當(dāng)我醒來時(shí)，我知道。
同樣地，如果我聽到門開了，幾秒鐘后我就知道是他，還是其他人，還是和他在一起的人。
當(dāng)我徒步旅行時(shí)，我會看，聽，聞。
And of course all this ignores the fact that humans are incredibly social creatures and tool makers. And have pretty astounding healing compared to many animals.
We’re damn dangerous, even naked.
當(dāng)然，所有這些都忽略了一個(gè)事實(shí):人類是難以置信的社會生物和工具制造者。與許多動(dòng)物相比，它的愈合能力相當(dāng)驚人。
我們就算沒穿衣服也很危險(xiǎn)。
I'm colorblind… those two photos you posted earlier to represent what a dog would see? Those look identical to me.
我是色盲，你之前發(fā)布的兩張照片代表了狗會看到什么嗎?
我覺得它們看起來一模一樣。
Yep. Less distinction between red~green, equal distinction between yellow~blue.
是的。紅~綠的差別不大，黃~藍(lán)的差別也不大。
One of the other secret weapons of the human species is that social cohesion. Even if one of us can't see the predator, you’re with other party members who can.
人類的另一個(gè)秘密武器是社會凝聚力。即使我們中有一個(gè)看不到捕食者，你也和其他能看得到的人在一起。
If you take a dog on a walk, and you are paying attention to the world around you, odds are you will see an animal way before your dog does.
It’s so true to the point of being annoying. I’ll notice some animal in someone’s front yard then a half a block later she’s just noticed it and will freeze and point at it. Thanks, dog. I saw that an hour ago. If the wind is at our backs my dog doesn’t notice a GD thing. The only times her senses are really useful are when it’s dark out and she has the wind. A few weeks ago on a walk she started pointing at a neighbor’s driveway. I didn’t see anything so I pointed the flashlight in the direction she was looking and there were two trash pandas dining out.
如果你帶著狗出去散步，你會關(guān)注你周圍的世界，很有可能你會比你的狗更早看到動(dòng)物。
這是如此真實(shí)，以至于令人討厭。我會注意到某個(gè)人前院的動(dòng)物，然后過了半個(gè)街區(qū)，她也會注意到，會呆呆地盯著它。
謝了，狗狗。我一個(gè)小時(shí)前就看到了。
只有在天黑的時(shí)候，她的感官才會真正發(fā)揮作用。幾周前散步時(shí)，她開始注意到鄰居家的車道。我什么都沒看到，所以我把手電筒指向她看的方向，那里有兩只浣熊在外面吃晚餐。
I’m always perplexed at these “humans are weak” kind of questions.
People asking must be aware of that humans totally dominate the world don’t they?
We have adapted and conquered every climate and bio top possible. We climate, animal population and the eco system in a global scale. There’s plenty of documentaries depicting tribes still living in stone age conditions and thriving in their surroundings.
Yet there are people wondering how we survived for so long - personally I feel offended
我總是對“人類是脆弱的”這類問題感到困惑。
問這個(gè)問題的人必須意識到人類完全主宰了世界，不是嗎?
我們已經(jīng)適應(yīng)并征服了所有可能的氣候和生物。我們在全球范圍內(nèi)的氣候、動(dòng)物種群和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。有很多紀(jì)錄片描述了部落仍然生活在石器時(shí)代的條件下，并在他們的環(huán)境中繁榮發(fā)展。
然而，有些人想知道我們是如何活了這么久的——就我個(gè)人而言，我感到被冒犯了。
Is it just me, or does that colour practically scream at your retinas when you look at that Hunter's clothing? Same goes with any high contrast colours, it actually hurts to some extent.
是不是只有我這么覺得？當(dāng)你看到獵人的衣服時(shí)那種顏色會嚇到你?任何高對比度的顏色也是一樣，它實(shí)際上在某種程度上是有害的。